For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
The White House
October 7, 2003

Press Briefing by
Scott McClellan

The James S. Brady Briefing Room

[excerpts on White House leak investigation]

[...]

Q: Scott, in October of 2001, the President hit the roof over a
classified leak of information from Congress. Yet, on this particular
leak that you're dealing with now, he was silent from the 14th of July
until 10 days ago. Why did he choose to hit the roof over one leak of
classified information, but say nothing about another?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll be glad to go back through this. We talked --

Q: And they were both anonymous leaked.

MR. McCLELLAN: We spoke about this the other day, and I'll be glad
to go back through it. One, when this report was published, there was
-- well, keep in mind, first, that there's a process in place for
reporting the leaking of classified information, and that process
worked in this instance. The CIA is the one responsible for looking at
those issues and reporting it to the Department of Justice if they feel
warranted. And then the Department of Justice is the one that looks
into it to determine if there is investigation warranted. And that's
exactly what happened. The President expects that process to be
followed, and it was in this instance.

Q: Well, it was followed in the last instance, too, but he saw
fit to hit the roof about it, to shrink the circle of people who were
-- had access to classified information. And in this particular case,
the leak of the CIA agent's name, equally as sensitive information as
was leaked out of the Senate Intelligence Committee in October, the
President says nothing about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, I disagree with that.

Q: Some people are saying that the President is showing a double
standard here. Is he or isn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with that. The President has made it
very clear that the leaking of classified information is a serious
matter, and he takes it very seriously. That's why he is saying that
we need to get to the bottom of this, and the sooner, the better.

Q: But he waits two months to --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has always said that. Keep in mind, that
when this --

Q: On this one he waited two months to say that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, are you through?

Q: Maybe.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay. Now I'll go. Let me remind you, that when
this was initially reported, it was still not clear that there had been
leaking of classified information at that point.

Q: When was that clear?

MR. McCLELLAN: But the process was looked at. Then the CIA looked
at this and they reported it to the Department of Justice. And the
process worked. The process was followed. Now we are focused on doing
everything we can to help the career Justice officials get to the
bottom of this. The President -- no one wants to get to the bottom of
this more than the President of the United States. And the sooner the
better.

Q: Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter
Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the
leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you
describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question
you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like
this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are
unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what
happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good
individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and
that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say
that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning,
but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I
report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

Q: So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three
individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is
that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. I've spoken with them.

Q: All right, let me follow up. Did the President direct you to
check with those individuals and get -- to find out if they were the
leaker?

MR. McCLELLAN: What the President has directed is for the White
House --

Q: Did he --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm telling you -- I know you want to talk about --

Q: It's a direct question which you're not answering.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no. Let me answer what the President has
said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he
wants. And what he wants is to get to the bottom of this matter, the
sooner the better. That's why we are doing everything we can to assist
the Justice Department investigators in their investigation, and we
will continue to do that.

Q: You speak for the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: The President made it very clear --

Q: -- you asked these individuals. Did the President ask you to
ask those individuals whether they were the leaker?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President made it very clear that we should
cooperate fully with the Department of Justice. And in that, keeping
with that direction, I am making sure that we are doing that, from my
standpoint. And I think part of cooperating fully is looking into
these unsubstantiated accusations that were made to make it clear to
everybody that those individuals were not involved.

Q: But I still want to nail down, because I don't think this is
clear. Does the President want you, or will he, himself -- or does he
want someone else within the administration, besides the two of you, to
individually poll senior staff members to find out who the leaker is?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, keep in mind that there has been no
information brought to our attention, beyond what's in the media
reports. to suggest that there was White House involvement. As the
President talked about earlier, there are a lot of senior
administration officials in Washington, D.C. And the President wants
the career officials at the Department of Justice, who are charged with
looking into matters like this, to get to the bottom of this. And we
are doing everything we can to assist them get to the bottom of this.
They are the appropriate officials to look into this. They have vast
experience in looking into matters like this, because they are involved
in these types of matters. And that's exactly what they are doing.

Q: Scott, you said earlier that the White House Counsel's Office
was reviewing, scanning the information that eventually would be turned
over to the Justice Department. Under what circumstances would the
White House withhold information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, keep in mind, the President has said that he
expects us to cooperate fully. And when you look at this, first of
all, what I was just saying in response to David's question, we want to
do everything we can to help the career Justice Department officials
get to the bottom of this, and the sooner the better. We want them to
do a thorough job as quickly as they possibly can to get to the bottom
of this.

So, the Counsel's Office, as a standard practice in any
administration, is the point of contact for the Department of Justice.
The Counsel's Office is assisting the Department of Justice in getting
to the bottom of this. So the information will be turned into the
Counsel's Office from the White House staff. We have a self-imposed
deadline of today. The Justice Department has set some other deadlines
over the course of the next couple of weeks.

And what the Counsel's Office will do is look through this
information to make sure its responsive to the request from the
Department of Justice so that we can assist them in moving forward as
quickly as they possibly can to get to the bottom of this.

Q: Under what circumstances would information not go over
there? Why don't you just send it all?

MR. McCLELLAN: If it's not responsive or relevant to the request
from the Department of Justice -- one reason you wouldn't want to do
that is because you don't want to overburden the Department of Justice
with documents that have no relevance or are not responsive to their
request. You want to make sure that they have the information they
need to get to the bottom of this. That's why we're assisting them.
They're welcome to look at the other documents -- that's not an issue
-- that are not responsive to their request. But what we want to do is
not overburden them with large amounts of documents that have no
responsiveness to their request or no relevance to this investigation.

Q: I have a quick follow up.

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure.

Q:During the pool spray, the President seemed to contradict
himself just a little bit. He said, I don't know if we're going to
find out the senior administration official. And then later, he said,
but we'll find out.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we talked a little bit about this earlier
today in this room, as well. Obviously, it is difficult to find out
who anonymous sources are. We all know that that oftentimes doesn't
happen. But the President was saying that we will do everything we can
to get to the bottom of this.

Q: Back on this other issue, just one more question. Could he
claim -- could the White House claim some sort of executive privilege
on any information and not send it over?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first, keep in mind that the President has
made it clear that we are cooperating fully. We welcome this
investigation. We want this investigation to move forward in a
thorough and quick way, so that we can get to the bottom of this. But
I think it's premature to even speculate about such matters. But keep
in mind what the President said. He expects the White House to
cooperate fully. And that's the direction that the Counsel's Office
and all White House staff is following.

Q: Is there an issue --

Q: If I can just follow up on the document thing. This is an
investigation that centers on the disclosure of a CIA official's name,
as well as a mission to Niger to check on the possibility of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Those are classified
issues. Is one of the things that the Counsel's Office looking at the
potential for disclosure of national security information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Terry, keep in mind that the documents are
coming in as we speak. A lot of people are turning in their
information. The White House Chief of Staff today sent out a memo,
made it very clear that -- what the President expects, and urged
everyone to meet this self-imposed deadline. And our Counsel's Office
will be going through that information as quickly as they can to turn
over all the responsible -- responsive information to the Department of
Justice, so they can get to the bottom of this. But I think it's
premature to jump ahead of this process. That's where we are right
now, and that's why I wouldn't want to speculate. But, obviously, you
always look at matters of that nature.

Q: Counsel's Office will go through some of these documents
before turning it over to the DOJ?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's the point I was making. We don't want
to do anything to slow down this investigation. And keep in mind that
the Counsel's Office, in any administration, is the standard point of
contact. This is a standard procedure in any administration, the
Counsel's Office would be the contact. There could be a lot of
information that's turned in from members of White House staff, because
the President made it very clear we want everyone to cooperate fully.
But a lot of that information may have no relevance or not be
responsive to the request from the Department of Justice, and it could
slow down their investigation if they're getting volumes of documents
that have no relevance.

Q: Well, what will they weed out, for instance?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, we're making sure that we look at and --
to see what is responsive to the request. And that information, as we
go through it, we want to turn it over as quickly as possible to the
Department of Justice. So even though some of the deadlines are over
the next couple of weeks, we want to move quicker than that to try to
get them the information. And that's exactly what the Counsel's Office
will do.

Q: When is the Department of Justice deadline for turning over
this material?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are some different deadlines within the
request that they sent over, and I think you should probably direct
those questions to the Department of Justice.

Q: And on the question of classified information, it's quite
possible that there will be some classified information involved here.
In the past, administrations have redacted highly classified sections,
at least those that are beyond the classification of those who would be
reading them. Is that a potential issue for --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I answered that, I think, with Terry's
question. But keep in mind that we are going through to make sure that
we are getting all the responsive information to the Department of
Justice as quickly as possible. That's what we want to do. We want to
get to the bottom of this. We have a very strong interest in seeing
the investigators get to the bottom of this, and that's why we're
assisting the Justice Department as they move forward in that respect.

Q: Right, but you have to protect classified information, even
as you're investigating --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, obviously.

Q: Yes, right. And so the question is, do the people who are
investigating, are they sufficiently cleared that you have no issues
with classified information going to the investigators?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we're in the process right now where all
this information is being turned in and we will be going through -- the
Counsel's Office will be going through all that information as they
assist the Department of Justice. We're working very closely with the
career officials at the Department of Justice . And they know
everything that we are doing as we move forward to get them the
information, as we are working hard to get them the information that
they requested. And keep that --

Q: You're just saying it's premature on that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, it is. I think it is premature to get into
all those issues.

Q: One last thing for you. You've got people going back two,
three, four months here on something, at a minimum, and looking at
their emails --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's February 2, 2002.

Q: Well, I know, but, you know, it's -- their discussions about
this were most likely to have occurred since July 14th. A lot of those
emails, obviously, have been erased, if your people erase emails like
the rest of us do. How do people actually get access to their old
emails if they vaguely remember --

MR. McCLELLAN: Individuals go through and do it on their own.
Obviously, there is information that is maintained under the
Presidential Records Act anyway; that's one of the pieces of
information that's maintained anyway.

Q: So do they go to some archivist and say, I vaguely remember
sending something back in July, can I go back and look? Or does
someone here at the White House provide that material separately?

MR. McCLELLAN: The individuals will go through all the information
that's in their possession. Remember what the request asked for, and
that's what -- I would refer you back to the specific request from the
Department of Justice.

Q: But that's what I mean. If you --

MR. McCLELLAN: But we maintain a lot of records already. And if
the Justice Department requests something, we're more than happy to
provide them with responsive information.

Q: No, I understand that. I'm just saying how would this work?
Let's say I remember -- I'm an official, I remember sending some email
about this, but I've long since deleted it. How --

MR. McCLELLAN: Understood. And that's why --

Q: -- how do I get access to that --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I look at the request and employees are
expected to go back through all the information that they possess.
That's what's expected of the White House employees. There's other
requests of the White House and staff, as well.

Q: So in other words, the Justice Department request would ask
the White House to provide materials --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look back at the specific request. I didn't
bring the actual memo out here from the Department of Justice.

Q: I just want to be clear, though, the White House is obligated
to provide emails that may have been deleted by the individual but are
still archived by the White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: Look back -- it said what is in the possession of,
I believe, in the White House, the employees and staff. So I'll look
back at that. But we are doing everything to make sure we are
responsive to everything that the Justice Department requested, because
we want to get to the bottom of this, and we want to help those career
officials get to the bottom of this.

Q: Other than the national security matters, is the Counsel's
Office reviewing generally for executive -- for presidential privilege
--

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I answered that earlier. Someone asked
that up here. What I said was that the President has directed the
White House to cooperate fully, and that's exactly what we are doing.
I think it's premature to speculate about such matters, because right
now we're in the process of collecting all the information so that we
can get it to the Department of Justice.

Q: My understanding was that the Department of Justice, that's
not just for individuals to produce documents, but that it's a backup,
the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I didn't bring the memo out here with me, so
I'll ask you to look back at that memo, but it was a pretty broad
request of the White House and the staff.

Q: Scott, the criteria for what needs to be turned over was set
forth in the letter from the Justice Department --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right.

Q: -- and the Justice Department established those criteria.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's right.

Q: How could something fit that criteria, and yet possibly be
non-responsive to the request?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Well, I think individual staff members
-- I hope at the President's direction -- are making sure that they're
going above and beyond to make sure that nothing is left out, that they
should provide under that request. But oftentimes in matters like this
there is information that's sent in that is not responsive. You know,
people we hope are erring on the side of providing more than they
should. But you're asking me to speculate about specific instances.
I'm not looking through that material at this point.

Q: Scott, both you and the President today are saying there is a
lot of administration officials out there. I mean, would you like to
see justice --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's a fact.

Q: No, but in terms of conducting this search. Would you like
to see Justice expand the probe beyond just the White House --

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I leave that to the career officials of the
Department of Justice to make those determinations. They're the ones
in the best position to make those determinations as they see best.
They have vast experience in these areas, in these matters, and I don't
want to ever try to tell the investigators what to do.

Q: But if the President -- I mean, the President wants to know
who did this.

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q: And if it can't -- the answer can't be found at the White
House, would you then want it to expand beyond the --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think they are looking elsewhere in the
administration, as well. I think you need to talk to the Department of
Justice about specifically on those matters.

Q: Two quick ones. Yesterday you said there have been about --
had been 500 or so employees that have turned over their documents or
signed something stating that they didn't have any.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I don't have an update. I mean, there's a lot
more that are being turned over the course of yesterday afternoon, last
night --

Q: Ball park?

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, we had Counsel's Office here until 11:00
p.m. We're moving as quickly as we can to get the information to the
Department of Justice. And there are even more certifications that are
being turned in today. And that's why the White House Chief of Staff
sent out the memo that I believe we provided to you all, or will be
here shortly, that said: the President has made clear how important it
is to him that everyone should comply with this request. The sooner we
complete the search and delivery of documents, the sooner the Justice
Department can complete its inquiry and the sooner we can all return
our full attention to doing the work of the people that the President
has entrusted to us.

And then he goes on to note -- this is in a message to the White
House staff from the Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- goes on to note that
the level of cooperation thus far has been outstanding. So people are
heeding the President's call to meet this deadline.

Q: Will you be releasing --

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, that's a self-imposed deadline. Yes, I
thought maybe we had already, but if we haven't, we will do so
immediately after this briefing.

Q: Just a follow up. Beyond the question of who leaked
classified information, which is a criminal investigation -- that's
what Justice is handling -- does the President want to know if what Joe
Wilson is now saying happened, which is that somebody, in terms of --
somebody politically tried to say that his wife is fair game. Is that
something that the President considers as wrong? That's separate from
the criminal investigation.

MR. McCLELLAN: Who made that accusation?

Q: Former Ambassador Wilson said that afterwards reporters were
told by somebody at this White House that his wife is fair game, and
that would have been sort of a political question, perhaps he is
saying, for retribution

MR. McCLELLAN: And what did he previously say? Let me remind you,
back in --

Q: He never brought that up. This is new.

MR. McCLELLAN: Back in August, at a partisan forum in Seattle, he
said, "It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get
Karl Rove frog marched out of the White House in handcuffs." This was
back in August in Seattle.

Let me also remind you, he later backtracked from those remarks and
went on to say, and this is from the Wall Street Journal on October
1st, "I freely admit I got carried away. If I left the impression that
Karl Rove was the leaker or approver of the leak, I didn't intend to."
And then he went on to say that "Mr. Rove's name is a name I am
prepared to use as a metaphor for the office." So this is -- so he has
made previous statements to that effect, and then later backtracked
from those statements.

I think it's very important to understand that there is a
Washington, D.C. game of rumor and innuendo. It's the ugly side of
Washington, D.C. And I'm not going to play that game, and you
shouldn't read anything into that. But let's make very clear that the
subject of this investigation is whether someone leaked classified
information. And there are a lot of names being floated, and a lot of
unsubstantiated accusations being leveled against good people. And,
unfortunately, that's what happens when -- in times like this in
Washington, D.C. The ugly side comes out.

No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the
President of the United States. If someone leaked classified
information, the President wants to know. If someone in this
administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a
part of this administration, because that's not the way this White
House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his
administration to conduct their business.

Q: So just to clarify, you're not going after this allegation
because you basically don't trust the credibility of Joe Wilson?

MR. McCLELLAN: What I said was that there is a Washington, D.C.
game that goes on in times like this, a game of rumor and innuendo. I
was just pointing out some facts for you to keep this in perspective.
I would not read anything into it. I'm just saying, I'm not going to
play that Washington, D.C. game, because this is too serious of a
matter to be dragged into politics.

There are -- let me remind you all in this room, that there is a
difference between setting the record straight and people going out,
trying to punish someone for speaking out. We -- this White House --
it is absurd to suggest that this White House would seek to punish
someone for speaking out with a different view. We welcome people with
different views. That's a healthy part of our democracy.

But let's also make clear that when you're talking about setting
the record straight, there were some issues that came up after the op
ed was initially published, back in July I believe it was. There were
some statements made that were not backed up by the facts. There were
two points of specific contention. And we set the record straight. We
made clear that the Vice President's Office was not the one who
directed Mr. Wilson to go to Niger. In fact, it wasn't us, it was the
Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, who made that statement
in remarks that he made public when he said that the people in the
counterproliferation area, on their own initiative, made the decision
of who to send to Niger.

The other point of contention was that his findings contradicted
what the President said in the State of the Union address. Well,
Director Tenet also pointed out, no, that wasn't the case, that his
findings were actually inconclusive on that point. Now that is
perfectly acceptable when you're talking about setting the record
straight. It's perfectly acceptable when someone makes statements that
aren't based on the facts to correct that information. And this White
House will vigorously work to set the record straight when facts --
when information is presented that is not based on the facts.

Q: So was his wife fair game, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I think I went through that.

Q: No, you --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are some, now, who are trying to move the
goalpost by changing the subject and changing the story. There are
some, unfortunately, here in Washington, D.C., who are seeing this
investigation as an opportunity to attack the White House for partisan,
political gain. That's unfortunate. I am not going to play the
Washington, D.C. game of rumor and innuendo. What we are going to do
is make sure that we do everything we can to assist the Justice
Department and get to the bottom of this investigation. And you
shouldn't read anything into that, but I'm making it clear that the
subject of this investigation is a very serious matter and it should be
pursued to the fullest extent and it is being pursued to the fullest
extent by the appropriate officials at the Department of Justice.

Q: What you're not saying is that it's an outrage that someone
brought up the irrelevancy of his wife as a part of an effort to
discredit. The two things, you said, were factual errors that you
believe he made. And I'm asking --

MR. McCLELLAN: Who brought up -- who did that? No, you said,
brought up his wife. Who brought --

Q: Well, obviously, his wife was outted, and was outted as part
of an effort --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, who did that?

Q: Senior administration officials. And I want to know if the
head of this administration thinks not leaking -- just leaking
classified information, but using Ambassador Wilson's wife against --

MR. McCLELLAN: And that's why I pointed out what he had previously
said and then he later backtracked from. So keep that in perspective,
that he's already made some very --

Q: But somebody did it.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- used some very strong words against a very good
member of this White House team, and then he was forced to back away
from those words later. Now, that's why I go into pointing out what
happens in this town. There are some -- and we all know who these
individuals are, you see them on the news every night -- who are going
out trying to move the goalposts, because they see this as a political
opportunity to attack the White House on other issues that are not the
subject of this investigation. I'm not playing that Washington, D.C.
game of chasing rumors and innuendo.

Q: You may not be playing that game, but the allegation is that
at some point, someone in the White House may have. You are expressing
a lot of disapproval towards the people --

Q: You're expressing a lot of disapproval against people who may
be making those claims now, but you're expressing no disapproval at the
possibility that someone in the White House may have done the same
thing

back in July. If there is a person in this White House who engaged
in innuendo against someone who is a legitimate critic of the
administration, does that person also deserve your disapproval?

MR. McCLELLAN: If someone sought to punish someone for speaking
out against the administration, that is wrong, and we would not condone
that activity. No one in this White House would condone that
activity. I've made that -- I made that clear last week. But that's
--

Q: But engaging in innuendo --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- it's absurd to suggest that the White House
would be engaged in that kind of activity. That is not the way this
White House operates.

MR. McCLELLAN: Look back at the Department of Justice request. It
said, anything in your possession, any and all, directly or indirectly,
I believe, were the words used from the Department of Justice and
forwarded to our staff.

Q: Earlier when you mentioned Joe Wilson's frog marching
comment, you noted that he was saying it at a "partisan" rally. And I
just wanted to be clear, are you saying Joe Wilson is a partisan?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just pointing out the facts. You all, as
members of the media, are the ones that can go and make the judgments
on your own, in terms of why people say certain things. I'm just
pointing out the facts.

Q: But does the White House think he's a partisan?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just pointing out the facts.

Q: Scott, can you clear -- this week, two Republicans, both are
sons of immigrants --

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me ask one thing. Are we staying on this
subject?

Q: Same subject.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's stay on the same subject. You've got the
subject? Okay, let's stay on this, since there's some interest in this
today. (Laughter.)

Q: Since the President raised the possibility that the criminal
investigation --

MR. McCLELLAN: Don't leave. It's just getting fun. (Laughter.)

Q: -- that a criminal investigation could lead -- could end
without the leaker being identified or prosecuted, would the President
be willing to let the matter be closed there? Would it be over there?
Or would he want to go out and find out, somehow, internally, look into
this more and find out --

MR. McCLELLAN: This is the hypothetical stage. Let's talk about
--

Q: Well, you said it's possible --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he was asked a question, and I think that
anybody in this room that was asked that same question would probably
respond in a similar vein.

Q: But that's irrelevant. We're not the President.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, go ahead. What's the last part of your --

Q: Would it be over, as far as the President is concerned, when
the Justice Department investigation ends?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, that's getting into the hypothetical. We
want to get to the bottom of this, and right now we're at the stage
where the Department of Justice is looking into this. That's where we
are. I'm not going to jump into every single hypothetical of if they
did or if they didn't. We want to make sure that we do everything we
can to assist the Department of Justice and getting to the bottom of
this.

Go ahead.

Q: Okay, you mentioned before that Secretary Card sent a memo
around to the staff this morning suggesting that -- let people be able
to get back to work and so --

MR. McCLELLAN: To meet the deadline, yes.

Q: Can you give us some flavor of how disruptive this has been
as everyone has gone through a year-and-a-half or more worth of
documents, what it's like for offices all over the White House to be
complying with this request now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think, well, one, I think it depends on
individuals in the White House. There are many people that probably
don't have any information that is relevant to the request or
responsive to the request from the Department of Justice. Obviously,
and I can speak from personal experience, in the memo, there were three
reporters that were cited. Anything going back to February 2nd,
related to those reporters. So as the Press Office and the Press
Secretary, we went back through all our records, just to make sure that
there was -- whether or not there was any information that had their
names on it.

Q: Well, can you elaborate a little on what that involved?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it meant going back through in our office,
and then going back through our phone records, it meant doing searches
of email, it meant going through notes that we have written and kept.
So that's the personal experience. But I think it depends from
individual to individual. I can just speak for my personal experience
with this. Everybody here at this White House will do everything they
can to cooperate with this investigation. We're also keeping our focus
where it needs to be, which is on the American people's business.

Q: You have -- speaking for the President, from this podium, you
have stated you are certain of the innocence of three men in this
administration. What I'm wondering is, how is it possible that
Attorney General Ashcroft and the Justice Department, which also report
to the President, can lead a credible investigation, if the man they
report to, who has already said he knows these people are innocent?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, I think we've made it clear that the
Department of Justice, the career officials are the ones that are
looking into this. And all those individuals I mentioned will be doing
the same thing that I did, returning any documents that would be
relevant to the request. And the career officials at the Department of
Justice will look into that. These are people that have been there for
a long time and have vast experience.

Q: So it's possible that it may contradict --

MR. McCLELLAN: And we have great confidence in those career
officials doing their job and getting to the -- hopefully getting to
the bottom of this.

Q: So you leave open the possibility they could contradict what
you have said.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, that's speculating. I'm just not going to
get into that kind of speculation. Those are three good individuals,
and it's unfortunate that some unsubstantiated accusations were made
against them.

Q: Just along that point, if the Justice Department were to
assert that they were innocent, are you worried that that would not be
seen as credible, since you folks said that here before the
investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: The investigation is going forward. The career
officials at the Department of Justice, we have great confidence in
their abilities. They have a lot of experience in this. They will be
looking at all that information. If there's anything that they feel is
relevant to their investigation, they will be doing follow up with it,
as well.

Q: How many people in the Counsel's Office are going through
this stuff, and how much is it? Is it boxes, or hundreds of thousands
of papers, or --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know the exact number. There are some
individuals that are assigned to this, and they're looking into --

Q: Two, three?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are at least a couple that are specifically
going through this, but I think they have others working with them, as
well.

Q: Are they attorneys?

MR. McCLELLAN: You're talking about some 2,000 people, and that's
just an estimate of how many people we're talking about in this
universe that was covered. They're working already to go through this
information.

Q: Thousands of pieces of paper?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q: Thousands of pieces --

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't even -- I wouldn't even try to speculate
about the exact number.

Q: You say that you're trying not to overburden the Justice
Department with excessive documentation that may not be relevant to the
case.

MR. McCLELLAN: We don't want to do that, because that would slow
down the investigation.

Q: But who is in charge of being the person that says, this is
not relevant --

MR. McCLELLAN: The Counsel's Office. And there are individuals
that are working on this, under the direction of the Counsel.

Q: Have you complied with the Department of Justice request?

MR. McCLELLAN: I have.

Q: And how many documents did you turn over?

MR. McCLELLAN: A lot, and I think probably many of them had no
relevance. I don't know -- maybe that -- there are a lot of times we
talked about Niger and uranium, and if there was anything like that --
I think because they said anything directly or indirectly related to
the trip to Niger. And so I probably -- and that's one good example
right there. There's probably a lot of information that's not relevant
or responsive to the request, but I erred on the side of providing more
information than I probably needed to.

Q: Okay, second question, while I have a chance. Does the
President agree with the Texas Republican platform that --

MR. McCLELLAN: Is this a different issue? I promise I'll come
back to you at the end. Let's stick on this issue.

Q: A little while ago you quoted Ambassador Wilson in terms of
some previous statements he made. But on October 5th, when he was on
Meet the Press, he did, once again, mention Karl Rove in the context, I
believe, of frog marching him for violating a code of ethics. And what
my question is --

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, on Meet the Press, he said, "I don't know if
he leaked it, I don't know if he authorized it."

Q: But he also mentioned violations in the code of ethics. He
did bring that up, did he not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And the President expects everyone in his
administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct.

Q: So the question is, is it ethical for a senior administration
official to advance a story about an illegal disclosure of a CIA
operative, basically giving that story legs, when the story in question
is an illegal disclosure of a CIA operative? Is that an ethical act?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've already answered this question. The way I
answered it was, there's a difference between setting the record
straight and spreading information to punish someone for speaking out,
or trying to retaliate against someone. That is absurd to suggest that
the White House would do. We would not condone that kind of activity.
If you're talking about setting the record straight, which I
specifically -- I think it was Terry's question -- we talked about it.
There were two points of contention back in July, and we did set the
record straight on those matters. And it's important that if
information -- if certain things are said, and it's not based on the
facts, then I think it is our duty to correct that information. And
that's exactly what we did.

Q: Is it -- was it ethical for a senior administration official
to proactively contact journalists after a column appeared, disclosing
illegally the CIA operative --

MR. McCLELLAN: Here we go down the road of rumor and innuendo and
unsubstantiated accusations. I think I've addressed the question the
way I would answer it. I don't have any -- I think that's --

Q: That's not innuendo, Scott, that's a fact.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a fact that what? What's a fact?

Q: The fact is that based on Ambassador Wilson's -- and I don't
believe he's lying in the op ed -- Ambassador Wilson has said that Karl
Rove contacted at least one journalist, which has since then been
reported by Newsweek as being Chris Matthews, and that he basically --
that he said that the CIA --

MR. McCLELLAN: I said -- to my comments earlier, I'm not going to
play the Washington, D.C. game of chasing rumor and innuendo.

Q: How is this rumor?

MR. McCLELLAN: And I wouldn't -- I wouldn't read anything into
what I said. Now people are trying to change the story and change the
subject, move the goal post. And I think that it's important to
remember what the subject of this investigation is about. But we could
sit here all day long and go down the list of rumor and innuendo that
is spread. And you shouldn't --

Q: It's not a question about --

MR. McCLELLAN: And you shouldn't read anything -- you shouldn't
read anything into that. And I pointed out that there were statements
that were made previously by the same individual who later backtracked
from those statements.

Q: The President has said and you have said from this podium
repeatedly that he's going to cooperate fully and he wants everyone in
his administration to cooperate fully in this investigation. But you
have pointedly not ruled out using executive privilege to keep some
documents --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said -- I said it's just -- it's premature to
speculate about that. But I put it --

Q: But that does not say you're not going to do it. That means
--

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, I appreciate what you're saying.

Q: -- that means it's open for you to use it at some point. Is
that not inconsistent, Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: But I made it very clear -- that's why I said it's
premature to speculate about it at this point because we're at the
stage of where information is being turned --

Q: But you're not saying you won't do it.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- okay, let me finish -- where information is
being turned in. And I made it very clear, to remind you about what
the President has said. The President expects the White House to
cooperate fully, and that's exactly the direction the Counsel's Office
and this White House are following. So keep that in perspective.

Q: But there is still the very real possibility that not very
far down the road he could use executive privilege, and that wouldn't
be very cooperative --

MR. McCLELLAN: See, here we are going to speculating. I said it's
premature to speculate about that at this point. But keep in mind --

Q: Well, let's not speculate. Is he going to rule --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, keep --

Q: -- is he going to use executive privileges or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Keep in mind, the President has made it very clear
that the White House -- he expects the White House to cooperate fully.
And that's exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what we will
continue to do as we move forward. But beyond that, I think it's
premature to speculate about any matters like that. I mean, someone
brought up classified information and national security information.
Is this still on the subject?

Q: Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: Same subject? Bill, and then Jeff. Bill, and
Jeff, and then we're off this subject and we're on to other matters.

Q: Going back to her question, why is the question -- why is her
question moving the goalposts, in terms of whether or not Karl Rove or
another senior administration official said something to another
journalist that's been documented? Why is that changing the subject?

MR. McCLELLAN: What's the subject of the investigation?

Q: The subject of the investigation is whether or not someone in
this administration leaked information.

MR. McCLELLAN: Exactly.

Q: The subject of the question is did Karl Rove say to Chris
Matthews, the woman's fair game? It's a different question.

Q: Which is part of the investigation.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I made it clear there's a lot of rumor and
innuendo --

Q: Right, but why --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- going around this town. And I'm not going to
chase rumor and innuendo and play the Washington, D.C. game. And you
should be careful not to read anything into that by what I'm saying.
But the subject of the investigation is, did someone leak classified
information, and if so, let's get to the bottom of this and make sure
that we find out who that person is. And that's why we're working to
get to the bottom of it, by assisting the Department of Justice.

Q: Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, you're not on this question. You said you're
on a different topic. Jeff, you're on this topic.

Q: Let's go back to the CIA. Is the White House looking for an
explanation from that agency about why Joe Wilson was sent, and who
sent him, and the process under which --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that explanation was provided by the
Director of Central Intelligence in a statement on July 11th.

Q: And what was that?

MR. McCLELLAN: He spelled it out in his statement. He talked
about there was the -- he said that the counterproliferation arm of the
CIA were the ones who decided to send him on that mission.

Q: Does that include the Ambassador's wife?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q: Does that include the Ambassador's wife?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know. You'd have to ask the CIA. I don't
know that. I don't know the answer to that question. And now, we're
off this topic?